Should a Police Officer Have the Right to Kill a Person Based Only on the Fear the Officer Experiences??

[Trausti]

If a physical struggle should ensue because the officer instigated a confrontation and that act leads to the killing of an civilian, should the resulting death be the fault of the officer who initiated the disturbance?

Not necessarily, no.

And why not?

Because your hypothetical is too broad.

I don't think so. And TSwizzle felt it sufficiently limited that it could answered.

"instigated a confrontation" What does that mean?

Well let's see

Instigate -- incite someone to do something, especially something bad.

confrontation -- a hostile or argumentative meeting or situation between opposing parties.

Do you need a definition of "a" as well?

If you instead wrote that the officer hit a civilian without cause, leading to a tussle, then that may be what you're going for.

No, that would be what you are going for. I know what I wanted to say, and I said it. If you don't like it, feel free to step away from it.

In any case, it's not the "right" to kill but a legally excusable killing.

You did read the question, right?

All of us can be legally excused of a killing, not just cops. Got to look at the totality of the circumstances rather paint a broad brush of "instigated a confrontation."

I didn't ask about what was legal or illegal. The question is

Should a Police Officer Have the Right to Kill a Person Based Only on the Fear the Officer Experiences?

If you don't like the question, you need not feel compelled to respond to or engage with it in any shape, form or fashion. I may be hurt by such a decision, but I will "endeavor to persevere".

Good grief. If you need to go to our safe place, just go. Twizzle obviously did not find your hypothetical "sufficiently limited"; he just added a variable which you didn't provide. If the respondent has to add a variable to answer your hypothetical, than your hypothetical is no good.

 

[fromderinside]

Happened thirty five years ago. A trucker was pulled over for driving erratically on a surface street in Pasadena CA (just in case some on is on a "I hate Florida" binge). He pulled over and parked legally. He first refused to get out of the cab. Ultimately he got out of the cab. He was huge and chiseled. Cop was short and pudgy. After a short conversation, yelling and accusing match, the trucker jumped on the officer, bot behind him, put him in a coke hold for the officer the ground, and was grabbing for his weapon. Five of us 'citizens' witnesed the incident and we all jumped on the pile grabbing the huge guy and by his arms and legs. He was on the cop but he had enough strength to lift me off the ground as I tried to hold down his left arm near the gun. Apparently our combined force wore him out. He yielded, let go of the officer and his gun and said "Sorry". Officer got up, put him under arrest, cuffed him, and stuffed him. We went on our way.

This is the way all cases should end. Citizens can participate. Cops don't have to feel alone or threatened. Citizens don't have to stay away because they might get involved or hurt.

So the next time you see a cop begin a tussle assume he's got cause. If the one accosted begins to turn the tables we should all get in and and help the cop subdue the guy. If the cops then beings out his weapon and opens up on the perp its a clear case of improper shooting. Otherwise he should just cuff them and stuff them. you're welcome.

 

[ksen]

So the next time you see a cop begin a tussle assume he's got cause.

nah

 

[ZiprHead]

NO! Absolutely no! That answer goes to "should." If we would focus on decreasing desperation and poverty and racial bigotry in our society there would be a lot less fear and a lot less killing of innocent people. But "should" is not a reality we can expect.

TAKE NOTE

This is how you answer a yes or no question. You answer the question first, like arkirk has here, and THEN make all the explanation, extrapolation, and exploration you feel you need.

Arkirk's a slut.

But seriously, there's a ton of videos on the net showing cops being ginormous jerks to people. Absolutely no.

 

[abaddon]

Should a Police Officer Have the Right to Kill a Person Based Only on the Fear the Officer Experiences?

No. An unequivocal big fat NO.

If a physical struggle should ensue because the officer instigated a confrontation and that act leads to the killing of an civilian, should the resulting death be the fault of the officer who initiated the disturbance?

Yes. He should be held responsible for his part throughout the whole situation, beginning to end, and must answer a lot of questions about it and answer them with excellent reasons or else suffer consequences. Police need to be much more accountable than they currently are.

There needs to be better answers than “Well a civilian was disobedient and/or attacked so the officer's self-defence is just automatically justified”. Was the officer being fully legal? (the answer in the Guilford slaying is No). Was the officer being belligerent? (the answer in the Guilford slaying is Yes). Did the officer need to make an arrest, was it very important? (the answer in the Guilford slaying is No). Did the officer need to use so much force as he did during the arrest? (the answer in the Guilford slaying is No). Did the officer put the civilian in reasonable fear for his life? (the answer in the Guilford slaying is Yes).

These questions, and more, should come up and get answered instead of the much-too-easy “he attacked an officer who gave ‘lawful orders’ so therefore the death is justifiable no matter what other details” dismissal of all such inquiries.

 

[Axulus]

AA,

Can you please provide 2-3 examples of "instigating a confrontation" that demonstrate what you have in mind?

Is going up to them to arrest them or write a ticket an example of such?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Not talking about shootouts, armed suspects, hostage situations, or anything like that

Talking about routine encounters with the public where the public is unarmed and maybe or maybe not rude.

If a physical struggle should ensue because the officer instigated a confrontation and that act leads to the killing of an civilian, should the resulting death be the fault of the officer who initiated the disturbance?

Reality: Any person has this right, not just officers.

There are two differences between police use of force and civilian use of force:

1) Civilians must come in with clean hands--you're not allowed to use force in self defense if you started the problem in the first place. Such a restriction makes no sense for police as most use of force incidents involve apprehending a suspect--a situation the officer initiated.

2) Civilian use of force is generally limited to immediate threats. Police use of force does not require the threat to be immediate, merely that it's not going to be preventable if the officer doesn't act now.

Beyond that in some states civilians are only allowed to protect family. Officers have no such restriction.

The actual decision to pull the trigger is the same, though: Would a reasonable person in the same situation, knowing what the person knew (thus you don't get to play monday morning quarterback and add things like "the gun was not real" that the shooter didn't know), think that it was needed to defend self or others?

 

[zorq]

I understand that police kill excited dogs based purely on fear rather often.

 

[bilby]

Not talking about shootouts, armed suspects, hostage situations, or anything like that

Talking about routine encounters with the public where the public is unarmed and maybe or maybe not rude.

If a physical struggle should ensue because the officer instigated a confrontation and that act leads to the killing of an civilian, should the resulting death be the fault of the officer who initiated the disturbance?

Reality: Any person has this right, not just officers.

There are two differences between police use of force and civilian use of force:

1) Civilians must come in with clean hands--you're not allowed to use force in self defense if you started the problem in the first place. Such a restriction makes no sense for police as most use of force incidents involve apprehending a suspect--a situation the officer initiated.

2) Civilian use of force is generally limited to immediate threats. Police use of force does not require the threat to be immediate, merely that it's not going to be preventable if the officer doesn't act now.

Beyond that in some states civilians are only allowed to protect family. Officers have no such restriction.

The actual decision to pull the trigger is the same, though: Would a reasonable person in the same situation, knowing what the person knew (thus you don't get to play monday morning quarterback and add things like "the gun was not real" that the shooter didn't know), think that it was needed to defend self or others?

That's nice; but it totally ignores the question.

You just described how things ARE in the USA.

The question was about how things SHOULD BE.

Or are you of the opinion that that is how things SHOULD BE, simply because they ARE?

 

[barbos]

Not talking about shootouts, armed suspects, hostage situations, or anything like that

Talking about routine encounters with the public where the public is unarmed and maybe or maybe not rude.

If a physical struggle should ensue because the officer instigated a confrontation and that act leads to the killing of an civilian, should the resulting death be the fault of the officer who initiated the disturbance?

This question is equivalent to "Should people suffering from paranoia be allowed in the police force?"

 

[AthenaAwakened]

AA,

Can you please provide 2-3 examples of "instigating a confrontation" that demonstrate what you have in mind?

Is going up to them to arrest them or write a ticket an example of such?

"Is going up to them to arrest them or write a ticket an example of such?"

No.

 

[Bronzeage]

Not talking about shootouts, armed suspects, hostage situations, or anything like that

Talking about routine encounters with the public where the public is unarmed and maybe or maybe not rude.

If a physical struggle should ensue because the officer instigated a confrontation and that act leads to the killing of an civilian, should the resulting death be the fault of the officer who initiated the disturbance?

Maybe, maybe not.

A major part of a policeman's job is to do things that disturb people. It's not always possible to predict their reaction. Many police officers have been killed or injured during a confrontation in which he was completely professional, but the civilian had other problems.

There is no blanket rule which covers all situations. In every incident and every situation, the officer's judgment, decisions, and actions are open to question. What matters is what happens after those questions are answered.

Discussions like this always remind me of the Gregory Peck movie, "12 O'clock High". Peck plays an WW2 Air Force general who has a problem with a bomber squadron which has high losses. The problem is the squadron commander who has too much sympathy for his men. He lets poor performance slide because he understands the stress they are under. The result is high casualty rates because people continue to fuck up on the job.

This is what comes to mind every time I hear a police chief at a post shooting press conference say, "A police officer has a right to go home to his family."

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Not talking about shootouts, armed suspects, hostage situations, or anything like that

Talking about routine encounters with the public where the public is unarmed and maybe or maybe not rude.

If a physical struggle should ensue because the officer instigated a confrontation and that act leads to the killing of an civilian, should the resulting death be the fault of the officer who initiated the disturbance?

Maybe, maybe not.

A major part of a policeman's job is to do things that disturb people. It's not always possible to predict their reaction. Many police officers have been killed or injured during a confrontation in which he was completely professional, but the civilian had other problems.

There is no blanket rule which covers all situations. In every incident and every situation, the officer's judgment, decisions, and actions are open to question. What matters is what happens after those questions are answered.

Discussions like this always remind me of the Gregory Peck movie, "12 O'clock High". Peck plays an WW2 Air Force general who has a problem with a bomber squadron which has high losses. The problem is the squadron commander who has too much sympathy for his men. He lets poor performance slide because he understands the stress they are under. The result is high casualty rates because people continue to fuck up on the job.

This is what comes to mind every time I hear a police chief at a post shooting press conference say, "A police officer has a right to go home to his family."

Regardless of the situation,

Is it a complete defense for an officer to simply say. "I feared for my life, therefore I used deadly force?"

 

[Bronzeage]

Maybe, maybe not.

A major part of a policeman's job is to do things that disturb people. It's not always possible to predict their reaction. Many police officers have been killed or injured during a confrontation in which he was completely professional, but the civilian had other problems.

There is no blanket rule which covers all situations. In every incident and every situation, the officer's judgment, decisions, and actions are open to question. What matters is what happens after those questions are answered.

Discussions like this always remind me of the Gregory Peck movie, "12 O'clock High". Peck plays an WW2 Air Force general who has a problem with a bomber squadron which has high losses. The problem is the squadron commander who has too much sympathy for his men. He lets poor performance slide because he understands the stress they are under. The result is high casualty rates because people continue to fuck up on the job.

This is what comes to mind every time I hear a police chief at a post shooting press conference say, "A police officer has a right to go home to his family."

Regardless of the situation,

Is it a complete defense for an officer to simply say. "I feared for my life, therefore I used deadly force?"

You can't say, "Regardless of the situation," in a matter that depends upon the situation.

At what point did he fear for his life? Some people wake up with a feeling of dread that something bad is going to happen. Sometimes people make errors in judgment and someone gets hurt. It may have been what we call an "honest mistake," but it does not relieve the person of responsibility for their actions.

This is the crux of our current crop of "stand your ground" laws. What matters in a SYG plea is not the reality of the circumstances, but the state of mind of the ground stander.

 

[TSwizzle]

Regardless of the situation,

Is it a complete defense for an officer to simply say. "I feared for my life, therefore I used deadly force?"

This is just silly. You can't possibly say without taking the circumstances of the situation into consideration.

 

[ksen]

Regardless of the situation,

Is it a complete defense for an officer to simply say. "I feared for my life, therefore I used deadly force?"

This is just silly. You can't possibly say without taking the circumstances of the situation into consideration.

It's not really that silly given that in the current climate all a police officer has to say is that he feared for his life regardless of the circumstances to avoid any legal repercussions.

 

[TSwizzle]

This is just silly. You can't possibly say without taking the circumstances of the situation into consideration.

It's not really that silly given that in the current climate all a police officer has to say is that he feared for his life regardless of the circumstances to avoid any legal repercussions.

Then you weigh up the circumstances and call bullshit or say fair enough.

 

[ksen]

That's what our society is currently in the middle of doing.

 

[Axulus]

Maybe, maybe not.

A major part of a policeman's job is to do things that disturb people. It's not always possible to predict their reaction. Many police officers have been killed or injured during a confrontation in which he was completely professional, but the civilian had other problems.

There is no blanket rule which covers all situations. In every incident and every situation, the officer's judgment, decisions, and actions are open to question. What matters is what happens after those questions are answered.

Discussions like this always remind me of the Gregory Peck movie, "12 O'clock High". Peck plays an WW2 Air Force general who has a problem with a bomber squadron which has high losses. The problem is the squadron commander who has too much sympathy for his men. He lets poor performance slide because he understands the stress they are under. The result is high casualty rates because people continue to fuck up on the job.

This is what comes to mind every time I hear a police chief at a post shooting press conference say, "A police officer has a right to go home to his family."

Regardless of the situation,

Is it a complete defense for an officer to simply say. "I feared for my life, therefore I used deadly force?"

Incomplete. It is a necessary part of the defense but not sufficient.

 

[ksen]

Regardless of the situation,

Is it a complete defense for an officer to simply say. "I feared for my life, therefore I used deadly force?"

Incomplete. It is a necessary part of the defense but not sufficient.

How many times has it not been sufficient?